Skip to main content

About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Vietor 17, San Francisco 10, Us 6, Laguna Honda 2, Puc 2, Lake Merced 2, The City 1, North San Mateo 1, Richmond 1, Ex Commenters 1, Merced 1, Shaughnessy Boulevard 1, Sonny Delaware 1, Workshop 1, Harding Park 1, San Franciscans 1, Harrington 1, Moran 1, Lumbard 1, Shaughnessy 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 16, 2011
    12:30 - 1:00pm PDT  

so we can hear it, not just one- on-one, but in the community. i am very supportive. thank you. president vietor: thank you. if there is a way to formalize that and see if that can be part of their agenda, i think that would be really great. if they want us to come and speak to it, if you can extend that invitation, that would be great. hello. >> good afternoon, commissioners but i am it jill from the arts commission. very nice to be here. i am very pleased with the status of the mou. we have work very closely with juliet and general manager ed harrington and the city attorney's. the arts commission is very enthusiastic and optimistic about the new broader definition of art in richmond, and we think it will bring a richer array of art work and art endeavors and art undertakings to the residents of the city. we're very pleased, and thank you for this opportunity and for
your continued trust in working with us. if i may answer any questions, please let me know. president vietor: thank you. thanks so much for your support with this. we are excited to be working collaborative lee on this. any other public comment? all those in favor question mark -- all those in favor of adopting the resolution? oppose? motion passes. >> item 11, discuss possible action that approving november -- amendment number 1 to water enterprise agreement for the purchase and sale of recycled water, and working with recycled water facilities with the north san mateo county sanitation district. the proposed amendment increases the funding for permits needed upstream of the point of delivery for the harding park recycled water project, increasing the estimated cost. the original estimate prepared by november 2009 was significantly lower than the
two bids received, and authorize the general manager of the san francisco puc to negotiate and execute this amendment. president vietor: hello. how're you today? >> assistant general manager for water. this item is an amendment to an agreement between san francisco and the north san mateo county sanitation districts. to the part of a bigger project, the harding part recycled water project, which is roughly $10 million project. the numbers are very small piece of the project. these are for improvements that actually will apply to the north san material waste water treatment facility, which then feeds into the pipeline that will deliver water to harding park, hopefully beginning in april 2012. basically, the engineers adjusted for about five different models in their system. it basically left them with the bids. we're recommending modifying the agreement between us and north san mateo county sanitation district for a $209,000.
>> so moved. >> second. president vietor: any public comment on this item? all those in favor? opposed? thank you. next item. >> item 12, discussion possible action to authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to execute on behalf of the city and county and memorandum of understanding with the san francisco housing authority for an amount to be paid to the sfpuc not to exceed what hundred $50,000 during each fiscal years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 to provide condition as asthma, operation and maintenance services, and emergency services for potrero and ex commenters, sonny delaware, alice b. griffith and alemany family developments. >> good afternoon. general manager for power. this memorandum of understanding is before you, this resolution
would allow us to continue to provide the condition assessment and operation and maintenance and emergency services to the san francisco housing authority five locations that were just read. we have provided that through a memorandum of understanding in the prior to the fiscal years and with the authority sought here today if granted, we would continue that relationship. we do have a typo. it indicates it would be one haggard $50,000 worth of services for each of two fiscal years. each aspect is incorrect. it is $150,000 for services in total for those two fiscal years. with that change, i ask for your support. happy to answer questions. president vietor: i know a bit about the hopesf rebild project. is this related to that, and is it going to continue? >> it is not related to that.
those are rebuilds of existing facilities. this just maintains the existing facilities as they stand today. we're looking at the role we might play in the hopesf projects, but this is not related to those. president vietor: ok, any questions, commissioners? >> so moved. commissioner courtney: we do me a favor and just described the services for us? >> yes, the housing authority properties that are listed here have above ground electrical distribution systems. so our high-voltage electricians under this memorandum of understanding would provide an assessment of those systems to the extent of the housing authority needs of their skills that to provide assessment. we will provide routine maintenance of those systems, and in the event there is a
power outage associated with those systems, the housing authority will rely on our power, our high voltage crew, to provide the corrective actions that are necessary to restore service. commissioner courtney: is it safe to say that the public utilities commission is letting out the current employees to the housing authorities? is that correct? >> yes, we're making our current skilled laborers, skilled electricians, high- voltage trade electricians, available to them. i would not say lending, because they are going to be charged for it. but yes, using our existing resources. president vietor: is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: all of those in favor? >> we had no speaker cards on
this item. >> opposed? motion carries. >> item 13, discussion possible action to approve an additional increase and a previously approved contract cost contingency in the amount of dollars in13,9018,197 for water enterprise, water system improvement program funding construction contract, number 5 east bay region. another is the general manager to consider it for a permit in approved modifications to the contract for a total amount of to $87,671,14447. >> assistant general manager for of infrastructure. as it was pointed out in the quarterly report, this is the bay division pipeline number 5. some unexpected additional field conditions were identified. so this is to increase the contingency to cover those
unanticipated conditions. they fall into four categories. the first one is unforeseen side conditions, which we have look that has built, and they were incomplete or missing. so that is about half of the $13.9 million. the other category is an additional restoration areas where we have to mitigate. the third category is site contamination within right away, which is about $4 million. and we have environmental litigation, which is about $700,000 of costs that we have identified. with this, it brings the amount of the contract to $89,671,0044.
so that is the purpose of this, to increase the contingencies. president vietor: questions? commissioner moran: i do not have a question on the item itself. i do have a question about the reporting. i went back and looked at that report, and the narrative in the quarterly report does talk about all of those work items. but on the financial and schedule part, it says everything is going according to plan. with that, i expect the contingency would be taken out of a project level contingency. you're proposing here that it comes out of the program contingency. i am asking for clarification on that. also, is there an issue on the reporting that we need to deal with? >> we are asking for it to come out of the program contingency because it is over and above what was already in the budget.
the good news is that the engineer's estimate was $97 million. with all of this, we're still only a $89 million. the bad news is that the trend portion of that report that you got was not exactly where it should have been. so we have been talking to the staff about why that would be the case. and if there is something we need to do on that early warning system to make sure we do not have this kind of occurrence again. but that report should have shown that there was a negative trend. president vietor: other questions or comments? all those in favor of moving item number 13? >> i believe we need a motion. president vietor: is there a motion? >> aye. >> second. president vietor: any public comment? >> no speaker cards. >> all those in favor? opposed? motion carries. next item, please.
>> item 14, this is land use discussion. we did put a note in their sane discussion will be limited to 30 minutes or such other direction set by the commission. when we talk about doing this kind of workshops, you indicated you like to have a time certain. so at the beginning of the discussion are during it, you can take your time and weekend time it for you. item 14, land use policy and from work -- workshop and discussion. a workshop presentation on and discussion of key considerations for developing a land use policy framework to guide the decision making process for current and future uses of sfpuc properties. the land use policy framework will be brought to the commission for consideration before the close of 2011. president vietor: hello. >> hello, good afternoon. deputy general manager. i have a few slides prepared.
i would like to kind of go through those. but this is a workshop, so you can stop at any time to ask questions. i like the analogy that we are trying to do something because we do not want to bring something back half baked. you will see a lot of the ingredients during the presentation, and hopefully that will stimulate some discussion with you. we're going to look at a couple of different things. one is the puc property types. we're focusing today a lot inside san francisco, because there is a lot of property outside san francisco. you have right of ways outside san francisco. there are a lot of policies in place for those properties outside of san francisco. but it could be much more comprehensive than that they are today. there's a difference between primary use of a property, if that is a utility purpose, and with the secondary uses are. or if the properties are no
longer needed for utility purposes, what is this commission's disposition of those properties? finally, we are hoping this discussion leads to a point where we can actually go away and start to frame a the land policy that can be brought back to the commission hopefully before the close of 2011, but also updating a lot of our policy of our procedures, our manual for real-estate inside sfpuc and how it's implemented within the puc. just to remind you, we do have some existing plans and policies in place and/or memorandums of understanding did you have the environmental stewardship policy which you adopted in 2006. we have a watershed agreement, production agreement, with the national parks service, which was first approved by you in 2005. and redone again in 2010. there is the reverse management plan with the u.s. forest service in 1988 and the national parks service is working on
their portion did you have the lme the watershed plan, approved in 2000 and 2001. those cover a lot of uses and have plans and policies in place. you have a right of way encroachment policy, and that was put in place mainly to cover a lot of the issues on your right of ways as we started doing the water system improvement program where people had fences and yards that we had to move out of the way and how we were going to do that in a transparent way. finally, there is that vegetation management policy and how we manage vegetation on our right of way. as you may recall, we do not want a lot of different types of vegetation which might interfere with their utility purposes, like planting a lot of trees or we have pipelines not being a good idea in the future. let's take a look at a few slides to get your ideas. sites with the primary utility purpose and existing or potential secondary use. this is merced manner, a
reservoir and central palm station did a that is the building and the printer to the left. it has a large grassy area around the pump station. we revegetated this after building the station. in a possibly have a secondary use. it has been used in the past by the local ymca for soccer for young children. but they have not come back to us at this point. this is college filled reservoir in bernal heights. again, it is an active reservoir. but it has land around it that could be put to a different use. there are some flat areas that are fenced in. it depends on how the commission wants to approach this. this is the southeast plant. if you recall, the southeast plant has a lot of exterior area around the plant that is just landscape at this point in time. there is potential to have a
secondary use. parts of the landscaped area outside of what i call the wall and there is a very friends on some of the property were you could do community gardens or things of that nature. it is property that you own that you could put to a secondary use. president vietor: maybe you can let as know how much land each of these has that might be available for use. >> to do literally side by side. it depends on where you put things. i do not have exact numbers for you today, but that is something we can actually produce for you. president vietor: ok. >> the next category is about beneficial natural surroundings. 26 reservoir, we took over the function -- twin peaks reservoir, we took over the function about two years ago. this is an overt -- (r. it came with a lot of land around it, which was surprising
to us. now we're sort of like these two words of that land around the. lake merced is an emergency water supply for the city of san francisco. as we rebuild the pump station, we will have an takes into the lake so we can pump that into our system in case of emergency. it is a large parcel of land that could be put to some secondary use. sites and no primary purpose would beneficial natural surroundings. we have laguna honda. right now, we do not see it as having a primary utility use, but it does have natural surroundings and we need to decide how to manage that parcel of land are in the future. shaughnessy boulevard -- and changed the conversation slightly -- sorry. i put in another slide. he owes shaughnessy boulevard, we do own a portion of the land
adjacent to the boulevard. it is a steve, -- it is a steep hilly area with no value. i cannot recall a free on it because of the municipal railway or if because there were closing the park. >> there was the a plan b. >> yes, and it's going to bring that up. president vietor: so these sites with no primary utility purpose, with beneficial natural surroundings, they're just kind of wild places where we do not have anything going on there, right? >> at laguna honda, some things are going on. there are some flat areas that and we have for beekeeping and things of that nature.
but we have not identified the primary utility purpose for that. o' shaughnessy boulevard is a remnant from nearly 1900 of a property purchased, and we do not really have utility purpose. we do not have a pipeline going through there or anything else. there is nothing there. there are some water pipes going into some of those spaces, but it depends on what you mean. if it is active, there are some active lines right at the street. all our pipes are in the street. water service comes from the street and you -- adjacent properties. commissioner torres: laguna honda looked like my old district. that is the common does making. [laughter] i wanted to laugh about lake merced. i have received correspondence about people -- from people about lake merced. are there some controversies regarding lake merced from our
perspective? >> we're working on a memorandum of understanding with the recreation and park department to decide the ultimate management at the lake merced track. we own the track. since 1950, the park department has been the primary management of the track. we have been the managers of the water. we're trying to delineate very clearly were the line is, and we take back some of the management responsibility for the landslide of lake merced hit a that is where the controversy is coming in. we have a draft memorandum of understanding that we have shared with recreation and park. we hope to come back in december -- november 8, even sooner. >> i have a meeting about this tomorrow with some people that want to talk about it. so november 8 is the drop date? president vietor: what about the level of the lake? >> it is of quite a bit, to your
standards. going back to the slideshow just briefly, the last one is the side with no utility purpose at this point in time and no secondary use. an example might be the francisco reservoir, a reservoir that was in the system that was sort of put out of service in the 1930's and it has no utility purpose of this point in time. and we do not see a city their use at this point in time, but that is part of the discussion of having a land use policy framework. president vietor: is there any value in making that reservoir working again? i mean, i am looking at it as another place to store water. >> it is a good question. the elevation is about 135 feet. when we did lumbard reservoir, that question came up from the
area. it is too low for a lot of the area we need to get to. it had very low value from a water supply standpoint of getting water to that height and try to back flow into the distribution system. we had much better, sort of, distribution, quality, and hydraulic capacity from the lombard reservoir site and expanding that, which we did. >> in the past when it was used, was that an issue? >> it was used then abandoned in the 1930's. san francisco was built along the waterfront at an elevation of 135 feet and sort of fad that area. people started moving up into the hills and it became an issue. building at a higher elevation serve people in the hills and the people in the lowlands and back into downtown. going back to the workshop
discussion and questions, the meat of today's presentation. we posed three questions to you. they might not be the exact right questions, and but we thought, what should be some key factors in considering secondary land use? what should be our primary or secondary use? do you want to have food? do you want to have a playground? how do we weigh in and make some judgments on that? and what about properties with no primary utility purpose? do we hang on to them? do we look at them as a future needs, or what? we created some categories underneath each one of these questions, so when you look at keefe factors, its compatibility with utility needs, if there is a primary purpose, is it compatible? you do not want a gas station next to your reservoir. that is not something that would
be compatible. the economic impact to the ratepayers. it should not be that the rate payers are subsidizing that use. it should be standing on its other. it should create a liability question for you. it should open it up to some sort of long-term. your priorities, whether or not it is for other things, and finally, is this a permanent use, or does it have an exit strategy? if you need to take this property for utility purpose sometime in the future, i am not talking five years from now, maybe 30 or 40 years from now, do you have an exit strategy that the second their use can be taken off of that? >> it may make sense to stop at this point. they are really questions. is it ok to simply say that we
will lose money on something, or do we think it is important that we make money on something. it is really that kind of a discussion that we wanted to have. which of these are the highest priority, and what are the preferred ways that we do business? >> commissioners? commissioner: make money. >> the urban growing of food. it is one thing to say that we can provide the property and make sure it does not cost us money, but we probably will not make money off of it. there may besomething else that makes more money. an overriding concern. that is really what the question
is. how open is the commission to multiple different uses, and depending on what the priorities are for the city generally? >> i have a very strong feeling on this. >> making money aside?
to replenish the copper so we can do some good. it does not have a secondary use at this point. we could have that as one of the values that we look to. president vietor: commissioner moran? commissioner moran: in general, what you want to do.
the rate for san franciscans. we went very heavily for that. what the practice is or the intent for that piece of land.
the francisco reservoir is classic. there are some who would like to see the neighborhood park. those are just very difficult things to sort through. what does it mean to have a policy? if we set out a very broad policy, saying in general we want to make money for the land that we have, and that the community-oriented projects that we want, to the degree possible,